-------------------------------------------------------------------

$10 Million Claim Filed In Pot Arrest: Cancer patient had prescription
(According to the Sacramento Bee, Robert DeArkland, 71, of Fair Oaks,
California, who suffers from prostate cancer and arthritis, filed the claim
against Sacramento County in response to prohibition agents from both
Sacramento and Placer counties raiding his home last October and seizing 13
marijuana plants, $420 in cash and a scale. "I might not get a dime, but at
least it may stop other people from being harassed," DeArkland said. He added
that he would file a lawsuit against the county if his claim is rejected.)

Date: Fri, 23 Apr 1999 16:12:34 -0700
From: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org (MAPNews)
To: mapnews@mapinc.org
Subject: MN: US CA: $10 Million Claim Filed In Pot Arrest: Cancer patient had prescription
Sender: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Reply-To: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Organization: Media Awareness Project http://www.mapinc.org/lists/
Newshawk: muad-dib (muad-dib@cwo.com)
Pubdate: Wed, 21 Apr 1999
Source: Sacramento Bee (CA)
Copyright: 1999 The Sacramento Bee
Contact: opinion@sacbee.com
Address: P.O.Box 15779, Sacramento, CA 95852
Feedback: http://www.sacbee.com/about_us/sacbeemail.html
Website: http://www.sacbee.com/
Forum: http://www.sacbee.com/voices/voices_forum.html
Author: Pamela Martineau, Bee Staff Writer

$10 MILLION CLAIM FILED IN POT ARREST:

Cancer patient had prescription

A 71-year-old Fair Oaks cancer patient with a doctor's prescription to smoke
marijuana has filed a $10 million claim against Sacramento County alleging he
was illegally arrested for growing pot at home.

Robert DeArkland, who suffers from prostate cancer and arthritis, was
arrested Feb. 5 and charged with felony illegal possession and cultivation
of marijuana for sale. The charges stemmed from a law enforcement raid of
DeArkland's home last October in which narcotics officers from Sacramento
and Placer counties seized 13 marijuana plants, $420 in cash and a scale.

"I might not get a dime, but at least it may stop other people from being
harassed," DeArkland said.

Officials with the Sacramento County District Attorney's Office dropped the
charges against DeArkland last week, citing insufficient evidence to obtain
conviction.

DeArkland, a retired home inspector, said that armed officers descended on
his residence in full riot gear, barred his teenage children from leaving
for school and frightened his wife by saying they would seize their home if
he were convicted.

He added that he will file a lawsuit against the county if his claim is
rejected.

Sacramento County Acting Executive Robert Ryan declined to comment on the
claim, saying he had not yet read it.

Steve Grippi, a deputy district attorney with Sacramento County, said the
case highlights the ambiguities in the medical marijuana law approved by
voters in 1996. The law doesn't outline how much marijuana is acceptable for
personal use, nor does it define the types of serious illnesses for which
weed smoking is appropriate.

"I think there was a lot of evidence that maybe this wasn't legitimate
(medicinal use), but there wasn't evidence to prove it beyond a reasonable
doubt," Grippi said.

DeArkland stressed that at the time of the raid he had taped to his wall a
letter from the Oakland Cannabis Club and a doctor's written permission
saying he had the right to cultivate marijuana.

Grippi said drug enforcement officers believed that the number of plants
discovered at DeArkland's residence, the scale found on the premises, as
well as an elaborate cultivation light system for the weed suggested the
marijuana was being cultivated for more than personal use.

Local attorney Joe Farina, who represented DeArkland in the criminal portion
of his case, said he is handling about a half a dozen similar medicinal
marijuana cases in Sacramento County.

"This continues to be a problem in Sacramento County," Farina said of the
arrest of people who have a doctor's permission to smoke marijuana.

In Placer County, local dentist Dr. Michael A. Baldwin and his wife Georgia
are currently on trial for illegal possession of marijuana for sale after
law enforcement officers found 146 marijuana plants at their Loomis home.
Both had a doctor's prescription for the weed.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

Study: Drug Treatment Cuts Crime (The Associated Press says an Arizona
Supreme Court study commissioned by the state legislature found that the
mandatory treatment provision for nonviolent, first- and second-time drug
offenders included in Proposition 200 led to reduced crime, saved taxpayers
more than $2.56 million, and resulted in 78 percent of participants later
testing drug-free. The 1996 law, which also allows doctors to prescribe
marijuana, was repealed by the legislature but reapproved last fall in a
second vote.)

Date: Wed, 21 Apr 1999 11:21:53 -0800
To: "DRCTalk Reformers' Forum" (drctalk@drcnet.org)
From: Dave Fratello (amr@lainet.com)
Subject: AZ: Drug Initiative Cuts Crime
Reply-To: amr@lainet.com
Sender: owner-drctalk@drcnet.org

(This is the first official survey of the results of Arizona's Prop. 200,
which included medical-use-of-illegal-drugs provisions, but also a rewrite
of key laws on drug possession. Late in the story you see criticism from
the Maricopa County D.A. -- they're steaming because they opposed this
initiative, since it undoes "Do Drugs, Do Time," their landmark harm
maximization program...)

***

Wednesday, April 21, 1999

Study: Drug Treatment Cuts Crime

The Associated Press

By PATRICK GRAHAM

PHOENIX (AP) -- Arizona's voter-approved program of sentencing nonviolent,
first- and second-time drug offenders to treatment rather than prison reduces
crime and saves tax money, according to a state Supreme Court study.

The program is part of a 1996 law, which also allows doctors to prescribe
marijuana and some other outlawed drugs to severely or terminally ill
patients. It was repealed by the legislature but reapproved last fall in a
public referendum.

The study, ordered by the Legislature, found the drug offender program saved
taxpayers more than $2.56 million, and that 78 percent of the participants
later tested drug-free.

``The outcome benefits of this intervention over time will reveal not only
fiscal and crime reduction benefits, but an increase in quality of life
conditions of this population such as improved family and social
relationships, increased work productivity and wages, and decreased health
system costs,'' the high court said.

Chuck Blanchard, legal counsel with the Office of National Drug Control
Policy, said of the study that drug treatment rather than prison ``is a
no-brainer'' way to fight crime.

``If you really want to solve the crime problem, you have to deal with the
treatment side,'' the former Arizona lawmaker said.

The court looked at 2,622 drug offenders placed on probation and in
county-run drug treatment programs from July 1997 to June 1998. There are
five treatment programs varying in intensity and duration depending on the
severity of an offender's addiction and psychological problems.

The study also found that 77 percent of the participants made at least one of
the required payments toward the cost of their treatment.

``As it turns out, the (law) is doing more to reduce drug use and crime than
any other state program -- and saving taxpayer dollars at the same time,''
said Judge Rudy Gerber of the Arizona Court of Appeals in Tucson.

However, the Supreme Court study didn't fully gauge the success of treatment
programs because it excluded recidivism rates. Court officials said they'll
look at those rates after the end of the current fiscal year.

``This study was only for the first year of the program,'' said Barbara
Broderick, the court's director of adult services. ``We eventually want to be
able look at quality of life indicators -- such as if they're drug-free, have
a job, are paying taxes and restitution.''

The study was criticized by the Maricopa County Attorney's Office. The county
includes Phoenix.

``This report does a disservice to the Supreme Court in that it gives the
illusion all this money is being saved,'' said Deputy County Attorney Barnett
Lotstein.

He said it's misleading for the court to include first-time offenders among
those kept from prison because they would never be imprisoned.

Maricopa County has offered its own drug treatment diversion programs for
first-time offenders for the past 10 years.

Arizona is not the first state to conclude that such programs work. Nevada
officials, for instance, say their diversion and treatments programs are
working to keep offenders off drugs and from committing crimes while freeing
up jail space for violent offenders.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

Arizona's Prop. 200 Saving Millions of Dollars, Cutting Drug Abuse, Says New
Report by State Supreme Court (The PR Newswire version)

From: GranVizier@webtv.net
Date: Wed, 21 Apr 1999 09:12:39 -0400 (EDT)
To: cp@telelists.com, november-l@drugsense.org, restore@crrh.org
Subject: [cp] (AZ) Prop. 200 Saving Millions

Arizona's Prop. 200 Saving Millions of Dollars, Cutting Drug Abuse, Says
New Report by State Supreme Court

Controversial Mandate to Divert Non-Violent Drug Users from Prison to
Rehab Is Working, Says Report

PHOENIX, April 21 /PRNewswire/ -- The controversial Drug
Medicalization, Prevention, and Control Act of 1996 (Proposition 200) is
saving dollars, reducing crime and decreasing drug use, according to a
report to be issued by the Arizona Supreme Court Tuesday, April 20. One
year after the Act was implemented, the report provides the first
comprehensive review of its impact.

Proposition 200 medicalized Schedule I drugs including marijuana,
heroin and LSD, and prohibited the incarceration of non-violent drug
offenders.

"Opponents of Proposition 200 said this was a 'pro-drug' initiative.
As it turns out, the Drug Medicalization Act is doing more to reduce
drug use and crime than any other state program -- and saving taxpayer
dollars at the same time," said Arizona Appellate Court Judge Rudy
Gerber.

Approved by over two thirds of Arizonans in November 1996 and
reapproved in 1998, the Drug Medicalization, Prevention and Control Act
requires that non-violent drug users charged with possession receive
mandatory probation and treatment instead of prison sentences. The Act
creates a Drug Treatment and Education Fund (DTEF) which diverts liquor
taxes to placing drug offenders into specially targeted programs. It
also establishes a Parents Commission on Drug Education and Prevention
which will channel savings from the Act into youth drug education
programs.

The Supreme Court was required by law to generate a report card on
the voter-approved law, and will report Tuesday that the outcomes for
fiscal year 1998 were "very favorable" -- and in some areas,
"remarkable." Results include:

* Cost savings to Arizona taxpayers of over $2.56 million.

* A total of 2,622 offenders diverted into treatment rather than
jail or prison.

* Over 98 percent of offenders placed in recommended programs.

* Over three quarters (77.5%) of probationers tested drug-free after
program completion.

* Over 61 percent of the 932 probationers for whom data was available
completed programs successfully.

* 77.1 percent of probationers made at least one payment towards the
cost of their treatment.

"All of these factors are resulting in safer communities and more
substance abusing probationers in recovery," concludes the report. "The
outcome benefits of this intervention over time will reveal not only
fiscal and crime reduction benefits, but an increase in the quality of
life conditions of this population such as improved family and social
relationships, increased work productivity and wages, and decreased
health system costs."

The findings have been hailed as having significance far beyond the
state of Arizona. "This report firmly supports a new paradigm of drug
control for the nation," says Norman Helber, Chief Adult Probation
Officer for Maricopa County, Arizona.

These successes are due in part to the Fund's ability to match
probationers to appropriate programs based on assessments that go beyond
the traditional "Twelve Steps" approach to rehabilitation, according to
the report. "The 98.2 percent matching between recommended and actual
placement is remarkable and probably would not have happened without the
Drug Treatment and Education Fund," it says.

SOURCE Adult Services Division of the Arizona Supreme Court

(c)1996-1999 PR Newswire. All rights reserved.

Redistribution, retransmission, republication or commercial exploitation
of the contents of this site are expressly prohibited without the
written consent of PR Newswire.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

Arizona Finds Cost Savings in Treating Drug Offenders (The New York Times
version)

Date: Wed, 21 Apr 1999 16:02:45 -0700
From: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org (MAPNews)
To: mapnews@mapinc.org
Subject: MN: US AZ: Arizona Finds Cost Savings in Treating Drug Offenders
Sender: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Reply-To: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Organization: Media Awareness Project http://www.mapinc.org/lists/
Newshawk: Nathan Riley and Dick Evans
Pubdate: Wed, 21 Apr 1999
Source: New York Times (NY)
Copyright: 1999 The New York Times Company
Contact: letters@nytimes.com
Website: http://www.nytimes.com/
Forum: http://www10.nytimes.com/comment/
Author: Christopher S. Wren

Arizona Finds Cost Savings in Treating Drug Offenders

Arizona, the first state to begin treating all its nonviolent drug
offenders rather than locking them up, says its new policy of diverting
addicts from prison into treatment has already saved the taxpayers money.

A report issued Tuesday by the Arizona Supreme Court estimated that
the state's new program saved more than $2.5 million in its first
fiscal year of operation, which ended in June 1998, and looks likely
to reap greater savings in the future. The report determined the
savings by calculating the difference in cost between locking up a
prisoner and putting the prisoner on probation and in treatment.

The results come as the nation's prisons and jails overflow with 1.8
million inmates, 400,000 of whom are addicted to drugs. The director
of national drug policy, Gen. Barry R. McCaffrey, has said he wants to
reduce the prison population by 250,000 through promoting options for
treatment.

From California to Connecticut, many states now spend more on prisons
than on higher education, making the Arizona model a conspicuous
alternative to building more prisons for offenders who committed
drug-related crimes to support their habits. At the end of 1998, New
York had 22,386 drug felons in its state prisons at an annual cost of
more than $700 million, according to the Correctional Association of
New York, a nonprofit group that monitors prison sentencing in New
York.

Of 2,622 people on probation diverted into treatment in Arizona, the
report said said, 77.5 percent have subsequently tested free of drugs,
a rate that is a significantly higher than for offenders on probation
in most other states. And 77.1 percent of Arizona drug users on
probation, who are expected to help pay for their treatment, made at
least one payment. Arizona has 25,000 people behind bars, a majority
of whom have drug problems.

Unlike the drug courts springing up around the country, which offer
offenders treatment as an alternative to trial and a criminal record,
Arizona sentences drug offenders to treatment once they have been
convicted or plead guilty and tailors the regimen to the particular
drug dependency.

Arizona finances the treatment through a luxury tax on alcohol sold in
the state, with half of the revenue going to a parents' commission to
run drug prevention and treatment programs. The $3.1 million in
alcohol tax revenue used to treat offenders is in addition to $3.2
million a year previously earmarked by the Legislature, said Barbara
Broderick, the state director of adult probation.

"Treatment works when it's done right," Ms. Broderick said in a
telephone interview from Phoenix. "Early and meaningful intervention
probably has the best payback in making sure we are safe" from new
crimes by addicts, she said. "When I put treatment with probation, it
changes the odds."

But Ms. Broderick added: "When we can't get someone to change, we send
them to prison. You can't continue to waste resources."

The report, which Ms. Broderick edited, said diverting drug offenders
into treatment saved Arizona $5,053,014 in prison costs in the 1998
fiscal year. Deducting probation costs and other expenses incurred by
the program, the Drug Treatment and Education Fund, the net saving was
$2,563,062. The report anticipated that the savings would increase in
the current fiscal year as more offenders were channeled into
treatment or finished probation.

Judge Rudy Gerber of Arizona's Court of Appeals, called the state's
new public health approach a welcome improvement over "the
revolving-door experience of drug offenders."

"It was like a turnstile," said Judge Gerber, who has been hearing
cases of drug offenders in Arizona for 25 years. "Many of us came to
the conclusion that we were parading them through the courts and
prisons without solving the root problem."

Now, he said, an offender convicted of possession of a modest amount
of cocaine in Arizona gets probation with mandatory treatment. "The
same guy in the Federal system is going to get a mandatory five-year
sentence," Judge Gerber said.

The Arizona Supreme Court report said it costs $16.06 a day to subject
someone on probation to intensive supervision, including drug
treatment and counseling, compared with $50 a day to keep an inmate in
prison.

Norman Helber, the chief of adult probation for Maricopa County, which
has accounted for 56.6 percent of the arrests for drug sale or
possession in Arizona, said the new treatment approach "has been
fantastic from the field perspective." He said Maricopa County, which
includes Phoenix, handles 39,000 people on probation a year, many of
whom have substance abuse problems.

Helber attributed the change in public opinion to the mounting cost of
locking up drug offenders.

"I thought it was extremely wise of a broad base of taxpayers in an
extremely conservative state to say, we're not going to rely just on
prisons anymore," he said.

The treatment option was an element of Proposition 200, the Drug
Medicalization, Prevention and Control Act, which voters approved in
November 1998 by 65 percent to 35 percent. The Legislature balked at
enacting it, in part because the referendum also endorsed the use of
marijuana and other drugs for medicinal purposes as long as two
doctors prescribed it in writing. The proposition was presented again
last year to state voters, who approved it again, this time by 57
percent to 43 percent.

Charles A. Blanchard, a former Arizona state legislator who is now
chief counsel for the Office of National Drug Control Policy, said
that even before Arizona's program became law, offenders convicted of
possessing drugs in the state were rarely sent to prison and that some
offenders caught selling drugs plea-bargained their sentences down to
probation, as it happens in other states.

But the referendum made a sizable amount of money available for drug
treatment, Blanchard said. And mandating treatment, he said, "caused
decision makers to say now that prison isn't even an option, so what
do we do with the offenders? In the past, many of these people would
get lost in the probation system with nothing really done."

-------------------------------------------------------------------

Drug Diversion Law In Arizona Paying Dividends (The Los Angeles Times
version)

Date: Wed, 21 Apr 1999 16:02:53 -0700
From: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org (MAPNews)
To: mapnews@mapinc.org
Subject: MN: US AZ: Drug Diversion Law In Arizona Paying Dividends
Sender: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Reply-To: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Organization: Media Awareness Project http://www.mapinc.org/lists/
Newshawk: Jim Rosenfield
Pubdate: Wed, 21 Apr 1999
Source: Los Angeles Times (CA)
Copyright: 1999 Los Angeles Times.
Contact: letters@latimes.com
Fax: (213) 237-4712
Website: http://www.latimes.com/
Forum: http://www.latimes.com/home/discuss/
Author: Hector Tobar, Times Staff Writer

DRUG DIVERSION LAW IN ARIZONA PAYING DIVIDENDS

Treatment: Early results indicate low recidivism, reduced cost to taxpayers
compared with jailing offenders. But critics say statistics are misleading.

A controversial Arizona law that diverts nonviolent drug offenders from
prison and into one of the nation's most sweeping drug treatment programs
has registered remarkable early successes, according to a report scheduled
to be released today by the Arizona Supreme Court.

More than threequarters of the 2,622 offenders who completed the program
tested negative for drugs, the report said. Keeping the offenders in drug
treatment cost half as much as it would have to imprison them, saving
Arizona taxpayers $2.6 million.

The report was immediately attacked, however, by officials in the
prosecutor's office of Arizona's largest county, who said the report used
misleading statistics to create a "false impression that doesn't approach
reality." The drug treatment programs were mandated by Proposition 200, a
voter initiative approved by 65% of the Arizona electorate in 1996.

"This was a citizen initiative in a pretty conservative state," said
Barbara Broderick, the report's author. "But most of us realize that
substance abuse is a public health issue that is devastating our community,
and that prison should be used for people who are violent or totally
recalcitrant."

The report did not address the most controversial element of Proposition
200: a provision that allowed physicians to dispense marijuana, heroin and
other drugs as prescriptions. That part of the law was overturned
temporarily by the Arizona Legislature.

Still, supporters of the law saw in the report a vindication of a liberal
minded approach to the drug problem, a strategy that runs counter to the
"zero tolerance" policies advocated by many local leaders.

"Opponents of Proposition 200 said this was a 'prodrug' initiative,"
Arizona Appellate Court Judge Rudy Gerber, a Proposition 200 supporter,
said in a statement. "As it turns out, [the law] is doing more to reduce
crime than any other state program, and saving taxpayer dollars at the same
time."

Offenders assigned to the Arizona program receive treatment according to an
HMO style triage system, Broderick said. Some are merely required to attend
education classes one to three times each week, while others were enrolled
in intensive outpatient programs that involved daily sessions with therapists.

In addition, 77% of those placed on probation under the program made at
least one payment to cover the cost of their treatment.

Because the drug treatment program has been in effect for just a year, the
study was unable to say whether it will reduce recidivism. Other studies,
however, show that those receiving such treatment are almost four times
less likely to commit crimes.

Barnett Lothstein, a special assistant county attorney in Maricopa County,
did not dispute the effectiveness of drug treatment, but did question the
premise of the Supreme Court study. Maricopa Countyhome of 60% of Arizona's
population already had a diversion program for first time drug offenders.

A few years ago, when Proposition 200 was being debated by the voters, the
prosecutor's office did a survey of county jails to see how many firsttime
drug offenders were locked up.

"There were none, not a person, because they were all offered diversion,"
he said. The Supreme Court study said 550 potential inmates had been kept
out of jail. Such claims, he said, were illusory.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

Study Backs Treatment, Not Prison, For Addicts (The Chicago Tribune version
in the Seattle Times)

Date: Thu, 22 Apr 1999 21:31:04 -0700
From: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org (MAPNews)
To: mapnews@mapinc.org
Subject: MN: US AZ: Study Backs Treatment, Not Prison, For Addicts
Sender: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Reply-To: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Organization: Media Awareness Project http://www.mapinc.org/lists/
Newshawk: John Smith
Pubdate: Wed, 21 Apr 1999
Source: Seattle Times (WA)
Copyright: 1999 The Seattle Times Company
Contact: opinion@seatimes.com
Website: http://www.seattletimes.com/
Author: V. Dion Haynes, Chicago Tribune

STUDY BACKS TREATMENT, NOT PRISON, FOR ADDICTS

In a report that likely will increase debate on the merits of
imprisoning substance abusers, the Arizona Supreme Court today issued
a study concluding that the state's new mandatory-treatment law has
broken drug users' habits in the short term and saved the state
millions of dollars.

With the 1996 passage of Proposition 200, Arizona became the first
state to prohibit incarceration of first- and second-time drug users
in favor of mandatory treatment. The law, which voters reaffirmed last
November after legislators moved to weaken it, also legalized
marijuana for medical use, but that provision has never been
implemented.

$2.5 million saved

The state Supreme Court study concluded that in 1998 Arizona saved
$2.5 million by sending users into treatment rather than prison and
that 77 percent of the offenders remained drug-free at the end of the
year.

"I was a trial judge for 10 years, and I got tired of the
revolving-door syndrome - I'd send drug offenders to prison, and
they'd wind up right back in the court system. Prison was no cure for
the drug problem," said Judge Rudolph Gerber of the Arizona Court of
Appeals, who was on the committee that sponsored the ballot initiative.

"I'd like to see this become a national model," he
added.

Too new to judge?

But critics remain skeptical. They contend that after only one year,
the program is too new to be deemed a success.

"The results are based on the premise that all drug offenders go to
prison. That is not the case," said Bill Fitzgerald, spokesman for
Maricopa County Attorney Richard Romley.

"Prisons aren't full of first-time offenders," Fitzgerald said, adding
that the state already has several treatment programs. "Anyone making
the assumption that everyone automatically goes to prison is way off."

Charles Blanchard, chief counsel of the Office of National Drug
Control Policy, said he is encouraged by the results of the study. He
said the federal government is moving in the same direction as
Arizona, proposing $100 million in funds in next year's budget to
finance drug-treatment programs across the country. The government, he
added, already has encouraged states to establish drug courts with the
authority to drop drug charges for offenders who go through treatment
and remain clean. More than 400 drug courts are operating around the
country, up from 12 in 1994.

Arizona's Drug Medicalization, Prevention and Control Act of 1996
mandated that funds from a liquor tax be used to finance treatment
programs for nonviolent first- and second-time offenders. Third-time
offenders would be subject to imprisonment.

Proposition 200 grew out of a study to find alternatives to
incarcerating drug offenders.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

Defendant Again Represents Himself In Marijuana Case (The Dubuque Telegraph
Herald, in Iowa, says Gregory Sharkey argued at his retrial Tuesday that the
plants he was busted for in October 1995 were just ditchweed and he was
maliciously prosecuted. Sharkey was first sentenced to multiple 15-year
sentences for 380 grams of marijuana and 66 marijuana plants. But in 1998 the
Iowa Supreme Court reversed the conviction, saying his Sixth Amendment right
to counsel was violated because a sufficient inquiry into his understanding
of legal representation was not conducted.)

Date: Wed, 21 Apr 1999 16:52:44 -0700
From: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org (MAPNews)
To: mapnews@mapinc.org
Subject: MN: US IA: Defendant Again Represents Himself In Marijuana Case
Sender: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Reply-To: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Organization: Media Awareness Project http://www.mapinc.org/lists/
Newshawk: Dan Berkes (dansb@webcom.com)
Pubdate: Wed, 21 Apr 1999
Source: Dubuque Telegraph Herald
Contact: THonline@wcinet.com
Website: http://www.thonline.com/
Author: Shannon Henson

DEFENDANT AGAIN REPRESENTS HIMSELF IN MARIJUANA CASE

Reversed conviction: Sharkey says the plants were just ditchweed and he was
maliciously prosecuted

Every man gets his chance in court to defend himself. Gregory Sharkey
started his second chance on Tuesday.

Opening arguments and the first day of testimony took place Tuesday in
Dubuque County District Court in the retrial of Sharkey, 48, formerly of 966
Liberty St. He is charged with possession of marijuana with intent to
deliver and manufacturing of marijuana.

Sharkey was arrested after a search of his residence in October 1995
produced 380 grams of marijuana, paraphernalia and 66 marijuana plants.

Sharkey, who represented himself, was convicted of those charges in December
1996 and sentenced to 15 years in prison on each count.

In 1998 the Iowa Supreme Court reversed the conviction and remanded the case
back to Dubuque County, saying Sharkey's Sixth Amendment right to counsel
was violated because a sufficient inquiry into his understanding of legal
representation was not conducted.

In the 10 months proceeding his first trial, Sharkey fired or declined the
representation of no less than five attorneys.

He is defending himself in this trial as well.

Attorney Phil Jensen had been given the case, but Sharkey filed a motion to
remove him. Jensen remains in the courtroom at the request of Dubuque County
District Judge Lawrence Fautsch, who said Jensen will serve as a stand-by
attorney.

On Tuesday, Assistant County Attorney Tim Gallagher told the jurors in a
10-minute opening argument that the case is based on the testimony of law
enforcement officers who executed the search warrant and discovered the
evidence at Sharkey's residence.

Addressing the jurors wearing jeans, with a hair comb sticking out of a back
pocket, Sharkey spent an hour and a half in opening arguments telling them
he was entrapped by law enforcement and was previously convicted as a result
of malicious prosecution.

In the rambling opening, Sharkey also alluded to disputes he had with the
City of Dubuque in the early to mid-1990s over the zoning of his land. He
said the marijuana seized on his property was merely ditchweed and that the
initial judge was unfair because he wanted to appear tough on drugs.

The gray-haired, pony-tailed man went on to say that he was given 500 pages
of documentation from his first trial on Monday and that Fautsch had not
given him enough time to examine the documents.

"The judge doesn't want me to go through the transcripts," Sharkey said.
"I'd like to poll the jury. How many of you think that ruling should stand?"

Gallagher objected and Fautsch agreed with him.

"See," Sharkey said to the jury, "they won't even let you speak."

The sole witness of the day was Capt. Don Vrotsos, project director of the
Dubuque Drug Task Force. He was one of the officers who executed the search
warrant at Sharkey's property.

Vrotsos, during more than four hours of testimony, said the street value of
the marijuana seized was $100,000. He believed the plants were cultivated
because mulch was surrounding some of them.

Sharkey, who repeatedly objected to Vrotsos' testimony because he had not
testified in his first trial, kept asking Vrotsos if he could ascertain the
quality of marijuana or differentiate between imported or home-grown.

"I can tell you it's marijuana," Vrotsos said matter-of-factly.

When Vrotsos could not remember a few details about the case, Sharkey said a
long-time effect of smoking marijuana is memory deterioration. Could that be
why he could not remember, he asked.

Vrotsos replied indignantly that he had never smoked marijuana and that he
has executed roughly 100 search warrants since the one at Sharkey's
residence.

The trial continues today.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

The Double Standard - Inequality In Criminal Justice May Be A Good Thing For
The Favored Classes (The New York Times reviews the book "No Equal Justice:
Race and Class in the American Criminal Justice System," by David Cole. "No
Equal Justice" makes a strong case that we have tolerated a law enforcement
strategy that "depends on the exploitation of race and class divisions." Cole
offers three solutions. The first two admit the mistake, then revamp the
rules to reduce the influence of race and class - but are probably
unrealistic, especially as the new rules could reduce "the rights that the
privileged now enjoy." Cole's third solution endorses "community-based
criminal justice," the antithesis of the "tough on crime" approach, and would
also be a tough sell.)

a review of:
NO EQUAL JUSTICE
Race and Class in the American Criminal Justice System.
By David Cole. 218 pp. New York: The New Press. $25.

Date: Wed, 21 Apr 1999 17:03:42 -0700
From: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org (MAPNews)
To: mapnews@mapinc.org
Subject: MN: US: NYT book review of No Equal Justice
Sender: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Reply-To: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Organization: Media Awareness Project http://www.mapinc.org/lists/
Newshawk: Peter Webster
Pubdate: 21 Mar 1999
Source: The New York Times Book Review
Copyright: 1999 The New York Times Company
Contact: letters@nytimes.com
Website: http://www.nytimes.com/
Forum: http://www10.nytimes.com/comment/
Author: Stephen Gillers
Note: Stephen Gillers teaches legal ethics and evidence at New York
University Law School.

THE DOUBLE STANDARD

Inequality In Criminal Justice May Be A Good Thing
For The Favored Classes

a review of:
NO EQUAL JUSTICE
Race and Class in the American Criminal Justice System.
By David Cole. 218 pp. New York: The New Press. $25.

LAST month, four white police officers shot and killed a young unarmed
black man named Amadou Diallo in the vestibule of his Bronx tenement.
A lawyer for the officers later called the shooting justified because
Diallo fit the general description of a rape suspect and because he
appeared to be reaching for a weapon. Do you accept these reasons?
Would you accept them if Diallo had been a welldressed older white man
standing in the doorway of his Park Avenue co-op?

David Cole, a Georgetown University law professor and prominent civil
liberties advocate, says that in answering questions like these, white
Americans will count Diallo's race, age and class in the officers'
favor. They would reject the officers' reasons had the shooting
occurred on Park Avenue, but then the officers would not have sensed
danger on Park Avenue in the first place. For the white middle class,
the lesson is soothing: The law protects them. For young black men in
poor neighborhoods, the lesson is chilling: An ambiguous hand movement
in a stressful moment can legally end their lives.

As Cole sees it, this disparity reveals two levels of constitutional
rights, first class for the "privileged" and steerage for minorities
and the poor. But Cole goes farther. The disparity is no accident. Our
criminal justice system, he writes, "affirmatively depends on
inequality." The majority of Americans endorse double standards of
justice because without them we "could not enjoy as much
constitutional protection of our liberties," even as we engage in a
"policy of mass incarceration."

Cole gives two reasons that the Constitution's principled language
fails to protect all equally: race and class. Race is not supposed to
count when the police make decisions, but Cole says it is impossible
for race not to count. Because police discretion is largely unchecked,
"racial prejudice and stereotypes linking racial minorities to crime
rush to fill the void" created by the lack of judicial oversight. For
example, Cole quotes statistics showing that black drivers on the New
Jersey Turnpike are three times as likely as white drivers to be
stopped for traffic offenses. Charles Ogletree, a black Harvard Law
School professor, makes the same point more personally: "If I'm
dressed in a knit cap and a hooded jacket, I'm probable cause."

Cole's indictment goes beyond police discretion to include
prosecutors, judges, legislators and juries. In theory, the
Constitution guarantees indigent defendants effective counsel. In
reality, Supreme Court rulings have allowed judges to treat lawyers as
effective even when they conduct no investigation, fail to
cross-examine crucial witnesses, sleep during testimony or come to
court drunk.

In theory, prosecutors cannot seek to exclude potential jurors
because of their race. In reality, judges are too quick to accept
disingenuous excuses. Cole quotes a study's finding that "in almost
any situation a prosecutor can readily craft an acceptable neutral
explanation to justify striking black jurors because of their race."
Nor may race influence decisions about whom to prosecute. Yet in
reality, prosecutions of African-Americans for drug crimes can be so
disproportionately high that no raceneutral explanation seems
credible. Cole reports, for example, that in Columbus, Ohio, "black
males are less than 11 percent of the population, but account for 90
percent of drug arrests."

WITH these examples and others, "No Equal Justice" makes a strong case
that we have tolerated a law enforcement strategy that "depends on the
exploitation of race and class divisions." Cole offers three
solutions. The first two admit the mistake, then revamp the rules to
reduce the influence of race and class - are probably unrealistic,
especially as the new rules could reduce "the rights that the
privileged now enjoy." Take the traits Federal agents have used to
identify travelers who may be transporting drugs. Agents have cited
the following behavior to defend stops: The suspect was traveling
alone, he had a companion; the suspect "acted too nervous," he "acted
too calm"; the suspect was "one of first to deplane," "one of last to
deplane" or "deplaned in the middle." Cole writes that such broad
criteria "will be used disproportionately against minorities." But if
courts forbid reliance on race, some white travelers who are not now
inconvenienced will be.

Citing efforts here and abroad, Cole's third solution endorses
"community-based criminal justice." This solution focuses "on
reinforcing the community ties that deter crime in the first place,
encouraging community associations, involving the community in
punishment and rehabilitation . . . and reintegrating offenders into
society." This is the ideological antithesis of the "tough on crime"
chorus - more police with more discretion, more arrests, more
prosecutions, and more time in more prisons. In the last
quarter-century, those punitive policies have quintupled the prison
population, with nonviolent offenders accounting for much of that
increase. In Cole's view, they have also robbed criminal law of moral
legitimacy among minority groups, which lessens respect for law and
increases our dependence on brute force.

Community-based policies will be a tough sell because they have been
so easy to caricature as soft on crime. Unless voters are receptive,
politicians won't propose them. So Cole's remedies require an
enlightened electorate. A promising sign is that the "privileged" many
also perceive a double standard. In an American Bar Association poll
released last month, 47 percent of respondents said the legal system
does not "treat all ethnic and racial groups the same." That's a
start. Unfortunately, it may take tragic events like the death of
Amadou Diallo to translate that perception into policies.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

Drug Law (A staff editorial in the Charlotte Observer, in North Carolina,
endorses a proposed local anti-paraphernalia ordinance, even though a similar
state law already exists.)

Date: Wed, 21 Apr 1999 08:57:14 -0700
From: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org (MAPNews)
To: mapnews@mapinc.org
Subject: MN: US NC: Editorial: Drug Law
Sender: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Reply-To: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Organization: Media Awareness Project http://www.mapinc.org/lists/
Newshawk: General Pulaski
Pubdate: Wed, 21 Apr 1999
Source: Charlotte Observer (NC)
Copyright: 1999 The Charlotte Observer
Contact: opinion@charlotte.com
Website: http://www.charlotte.com/observer/

EDITORIAL

Drug law

Let's give this new one a careful try

A Charlotte City Council committee wants the full council to pass an
ordinance penalizing the sale of drug paraphernalia. We think the idea is
worth a careful try.

The 23 neighborhoods represented by the anti-drug group Fighting Back
certainly think so. Council member Malachi Greene proposed the ordinance at
their request. At a hearing Monday the group's director, Hattie Anthony,
said, "They (residents) want some of these items removed from their
neighborhoods so young people won't have . . . easy access to them." She
said a series of neighborhood meetings had revealed strong support for the
measure.

Some others are understandably wary. They point out difficulties in defining
what equipment is covered. Pipes, for example, may be put to various uses,
most quite legal. Skeptics are worried about the possibilities for selective
enforcement.

Perhaps with this in mind, the ordinance would call upon law enforcement
officials to consider surrounding circumstances in deciding whether items
qualified as drug paraphernalia. Examples might be known drug abuse nearby,
or the presence in a store of magazines about marijuana smoking. In
requiring this, the ordinance would mimic a state statute that already
outlaws the manufacture or possession of a long list of the items in
question.

The ordinance would levy a civil penalty of a $100 fine for each offense.
Officials say this would be easier to enforce than the state law. They say
also that shady operators would fear this more than the prospect of a state
misdemeanor charge grinding its way through a court system that is always
extremely busy with larger matters.

In light of the neighborhoods' strong call for help, it's better to move on
known problems than to shrink from ones that may not develop. We think it's
appropriate to bet on the probability that the community and the Police
Department, working together, can apply the proposed ordinance effectively
and fairly.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

Cops Can't Keep Up With B.C. Drug Trade (The Kelowna Daily Courier says
figures compiled by the Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics show that in
1997, British Columbia had 13 per cent of Canada's population but was
responsible for 25 per cent all the cannabis "incidents" in the country, 28
per cent of cocaine offences and 61 per cent of all heroin incidents. B.C.'s
rate of drug charges is 26 per cent higher than the national average. But the
drug problem is so prevalent, fewer than one in three cannabis offences
resulted in criminal charges.)

Date: Thu, 22 Apr 1999 03:29:50 -0700
From: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org (MAPNews)
To: mapnews@mapinc.org
Subject: MN: Canada: Cops Can't Keep Up With B.C. Drug Trade
Sender: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Reply-To: owner-mapnews@mapinc.org
Organization: Media Awareness Project http://www.mapinc.org/lists/
Newshawk: H. Couch
Pubdate: Wednesday, April 21, 1999
Source: Kelowna Daily Courier (Canada)
Website: http://www.ok.bc.ca/dc/
Copyright 1999 The Okanagan Valley Group of Newspapers
Author: Don Plant

COPS CAN'T KEEP UP WITH B.C. DRUG TRADE

If you're a drug user, B.C. is the Shangri-La of Canada.

Statistics Canada reports B.C. had the highest rate of drug incidents
of any province in the country in 1997. There were 430 drug incidents
for every 100,000 British Columbians that year, nearly twice the
national average.

More startling is the high proportion of drug offences in B.C.
compared to the rest of Canada.

In 1997, our province was responsible for 25 per cent of all the
cannabis incidents in the country, 28 per cent of the cocaine offences
and 61 per cent of all heroin incidents. Our population comprises 13
per cent of the nation's.

B.C.'s rate of drug charges is 26 per cent higher than the national
average. But the drug problem is so prevalent, fewer than one in three
cannabis offences resulted in criminal charges.

"We don't prosecute nearly as many narcotics charges as they do
percentage-wise in other provinces," said Kelowna prosecutor Michael
Dirk. "There are more marijuana charges in Alberta and Saskatchewan
than in B.C."

The Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics compiled the figures after
consulting with police departments across the country.

The stats show the farther west you go in Canada, the higher the crime
rate, said senior analyst Robert Allen.

"It's the same in the U.S., B.C. has historically the highest crime
rate in Canada," he said. "B.C. and California have very transient
populations."

Police aren't surprised by the trend. B.C. is known as a major
exporter of marijuana and importer of heroin and cocaine. And they
blame a lax court system, not enough police funding and the West Coast
lifestyle as contributing factors.

Kelowna RCMP are struggling to keep up with the volume of information
pouring in on marijuana grow operations. The local Mounties take down
an indoor dope farm about once a week. Yet they receive about a tip a
day on where to bust next.

"With the resources we have... we're only touching the tip of the
iceberg," said RCMP spokesman Garth Letcher. "With today's legal
standards, there's only so much we can do."

Other provinces have stiffer sanctions, which attracts users to B.C.
The milder climate and the fact you can get free hypodermic needles
also helps, said RCMP Cpl. Fergus Rodine.

"A lot of people can afford it. Loggers and fishermen work hard and
party. There's a market for it. You don't go to Estevan, Sask. to be a
drug dealer," he said. Local police concentrate more on stopping the
suppliers than charging the users. They'd sooner go after someone
trafficking cocaine than someone who grows pot because a coke addict
is more likely to rob a bank, said Rodine.

The heroin problem plaguing the Lower Mainland is also spilling over
into the Okanagan. It's getting "more and more prevalent" in the
Valley, said RCMP Cpl. Randy Hundt.

But people can't rely on police alone to fix the growing drug problem,
said Letcher.

"There have to be changes among all partners involved, the community,
police and judicial system," he said.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

Police chiefs want possession of all narcotics decriminalized - Fight court
backlog (According to the National Post, the newspaper has learned that
Canada's police chiefs have recommended that the federal government
decriminalize possession of small quantities of all illegal narcotics,
including heroin. The proposal was approved last week by the board of
directors of the Association of Canadian Police Chiefs and will be submitted
to the membership for a vote later this year. The recommendation is meant to
clear the courts of a backlog of drug cases and allow police to concentrate
resources on more serious crimes.)

Date: Wed, 21 Apr 1999 14:22:18 -0400
To: mattalk@listserv.islandnet.com
From: Lynn Harichy (lharichy@execulink.com)
Subject: Police chiefs want possession of all narcotics decriminalized
Fight court backlog
Contact: letters@nationalpost.com
Website: http://www.nationalpost.com/
Forum: http://forums.canada.com/~canada
Copyright: Southam Inc.

Police chiefs want possession of all narcotics decriminalized
Fight court backlog

Robert Fife, Ottawa Bureau Chief
National Post

OTTAWA - Canada's police chiefs are recommending that the federal
government decriminalize possession of small quantities of all illegal
narcotics, including heroin, the National Post has learned.

If the federal government accepts the proposal, anyone convicted of simple
possession of narcotics would simply sign a guilty statement and pay a
fine, without having to go through the court system. They would not have a
criminal record.

The proposal is meant to clear the courts of a backlog of drug cases and
allow police to concentrate resources on more serious crimes.

It was approved by the board of directors of the Association of Canadian
Police Chiefs last week and will be submitted to the membership for a vote
later this year.

The association's drug abuse committee, led by Barry King, Chief of the
Brockville, Ont. police force, proposed decriminalization of narcotics, but
also called for new federal and provincial programs to deal with substance
abuse.

Senior federal officials were part of the "intense dialogue" in the
drafting of the proposal and one top Justice Department official said it
will be given serious consideration.

Mr. King would not offer details until the proposal is revealed at a news
conference next week, but Julian Fantino, chief of the York Region police
force and a member of the association's board of directors, stressed they
are not recommending legalization of marijunana, cocaine, heroin, or other
illegal drugs.

Mr. Fantino said Canada's police chiefs are responding to the reality that
police forces are wasting scarce resources going to court when most judges
throw out drug-possession cases.

"I mean we diligently put these cases forward but in places like Vancouver,
for example, it is a terrible problem just trying to get any kind of
conviction for these issues using the courts. . . It is just draining our
resources and, in the end, the outcome is nothing," he told the National
Post yesterday.

Chief Fantino stressed, however, that the police chiefs also want
politicians to direct substantial funds to help deal with drug abuse, as
well as for education programs to dissuade young people from trying
narcotics.

He points to the United States, where efforts are underway to treat drug
abuse as a health issue and not as a crime.

"We rely heavily on the criminal justice system, the police to deal with
this issue. We need a strategic, sophisticated drug policy in this country.
There needs to be a great deal more effort with respect to education,
getting at young people and treating people who want to be treated," he said.

However, Mr. Fantino said the police also need funds to go after organized
crime, which is the principal conduit of illegal drugs into Canada. The
problem is that governments are short-changing the police, he said.

"We don't seem to realize how devastating it is to see the deterioration of
communities, the ruination of lives, but this is directly linked to the
activities of organized crime . . . but we have to go begging for the
resources to help us do anything of meaningful work with respect to
organized crime. Our priorities in this country are all screwed up," he said.

A senior law enforcement official, however, who asked not to be identified,
said the government would be foolish to accept the proposal by the police
chiefs. It would particularly anger the Americans, who are already upset
about Canada's inability to stop smuggling of drugs and immigrants into the
U.S.

"I wonder how they will react to know that the federal government is
contemplating decriminalizing possession of narcotics. I suspect they would
be somewhat pissed," said the official, who noted it is a subject of
controversy among police forces.